Che Guevara , the real story

Hollywood history is often nonsensical,
but filmmakers usually have the good sense not to whitewash killers and sadists.
Steven Soderbergh’s new film about Che Guevara, however, does that, and
more.

Che the revolutionary romantic, as depicted by
Benecio del Toro in Soderbergh’s film, never existed. That hero of the left,
with his hippie hair and beard, an image now iconic on t-shirts and coffee mugs
around the world, is a myth concocted by Fidel Castro’s propagandists –
something of a cross between Don Quixote and Robin Hood.

Like those tall tales, Fidel’s myth of Che
bears a superficial resemblance to historical facts, but the real story is far
darker. Some Robin Hood probably did brutalize the rich and, to cover his
tracks, give some of his loot to the poor. In medieval Spain, Quixote-like
knights probably did roam the countryside, ridding it not of dragons but of the
land’s few remaining Muslims.

The same goes for the legendary Che. No
teenager in rebellion against the world or his parents seems able to resist
Che’s alluring image. Just wearing a Che t-shirt is the shortest and cheapest
way to appear to be on the right side of History.

What works for teenagers also seems to work
with forever-young movie directors. In the 1960’s, the Che look, with beard and
beret, was at least a glib political statement. Today, it is little more than a
fashion accoutrement that inspires a big-budget Hollywood epic. Are Che theme parks next?

But once there was a real Che Guevara: he is
less well known than the fictional puppet that has replaced reality. The true
Che was a more significant figure than his fictional clone, for he was the
incarnation of what revolution and Marxism really meant in the twentieth
century.

Che was no humanist. No communist leader,
indeed, ever held humanist values. Karl Marx certainly was not one. True to
their movement’s founding prophet, Stalin, Mao, Castro, and Che held no respect
for life. Blood needed to be shed if a better world was to be baptized. When
criticized by one of his early companions for the death of millions during the
Chinese revolution, Mao observed that countless Chinese die everyday, so what
did it matter?

Likewise, Che could kill with a shrug. Trained
as a medical doctor in Argentina, he chose not to save lives but to suppress
them. After he seized power, Che put to death five hundred “enemies” of the
revolution without trial, or even much discrimination.

Castro, no humanist himself, did his best to
neutralize Guevara by appointing him Minister for Industry. As could be
expected, Che applied Soviet policies to the Cubans: agriculture was destroyed
and ghost factories dotted the landscape. He did not care about Cuba’s economy
or its people: his purpose was to pursue revolution for its own sake, whatever
it meant, like art for art’s sake.

Indeed, without his ideology, Che would have
been nothing more than another serial killer. Ideological sloganeering allowed
him to kill in larger numbers than any serial killer could imagine, and all in
the name of justice. Five centuries ago, Che probably would have been one of
those priest/soldiers exterminating Latin America’s natives in the name of God.
In the name of History, Che, too, saw murder as a necessary tool of a noble
cause.

But suppose we judge this Marxist hero by his
own criteria: did he actually transform the world? The answer is yes – but for
the worse. The communist Cuba he helped to forge is an undisputed and
unmitigated failure, much more impoverished and much less free than it was
before its “liberation.” Despite the social reforms the left likes to trumpet
about Cuba, its literacy rate was higher before Castro came to power, and racism
against the black population was less pervasive. Indeed, Cuba’s leaders today
are far more likely to be white than they were in Batista’s
day.

Beyond Cuba, the Che myth has inspired
thousands of students and activists across Latin America to lose their lives in
foolhardy guerrilla struggles. The left, inspired by the siren call of Che,
chose armed struggle instead of elections. By doing so, it opened the way to
military dictatorship. Latin America is not yet cured of these unintended
consequences of Guevarism.

Indeed, fifty years after Cuba’s revolution,
Latin America remains divided. Those nations that rejected Che’s mythology and
chose the path of democracy and the free market, such as Brazil, Peru, and
Chile, are better off than they ever were: equality, freedom, and economic
progress have advanced in unity. By contrast, those nations that remain
nostalgic for the cause of Che, such as Venezuela, Ecuador, and Bolivia, are at
this very moment poised on the brink of civil war.

The real Che, who spent most of his time as
Castro’s central banker supervising executions, deserves to be better known.
And more should be known on the
circumstances of his death in Bolivia : Castro could save him ( by paying the Bolivian military ) but did
not , under Soviet pressure . The Che wasbecoming an idealist : a strong reason for Castro and his sponsors , to get rid of
him.

Perhaps if Soderbergh’s two-part Che epic
succeeds at the box office, his financial backers will want to film a more
truthful sequel. There is no certainly shortage of material for “Che, The Untold
Story.”

As we await that sequel, we will be able to sit
back and enjoy some more Hollywood history, as Jodie Foster is supposedly
preparing to star in a film of the life of Leni Riefenstahl, the Third Reich’s
official auteur.

Dude! While your personal feelings about Che G. are valid you really need to improve your state of knowledge about the western hemisphere and it's history. Why would you suggest that the pattern of conflict between social revolutionaries and strongmen started in Cuba in 1959? Those patterns were apparent in Hati and Mexico and Argentina well before the 50's.

The main appeal of Cuban propaganda and Che's imagery is not about left versus right it's about nationalist sensibilities in the face of superpower domination. Oh and those consumer products with Che imagery are seen as terribly gauche and naive by the mainstream left. I don't think I've met a real activist with anything more than a copy of the motercycle diaries.

As for your take on contemporary latin America. Are you aware that Chile and Brazil are being led by social democrats? As are 2 members of your bad guys list Bolivia and Ecuador.

Finally don't you think it's a little ironic for a french republican to be decrying the death toll in another nations revolutionary process? The reason rebel governments don't use an established judicial procedure is that they have just overthrown the establishment. Nest pas? If Batista and his government were really working with the Mafia then they were already running the risk of of being executed. I wasn't aware that Che' was Central banker but all central bankers have the power to cause or prevent hundreds of deaths with mere economic policy. How shocking is it that one of them was allowed to do so directly?

They should take up building BVLGARI Watches dams for power generation. We should FRANCK MULLER watches learn from china. They have the world's largest dam for power CHANEL Watches production, it alone produces 22,000 MW of LONGINES Watch power. So, unless the government opens up the economy more for iwc watches foreign investors, this power cut problem is a life long disease every hublot-watches india will need to face.http://www.watchvisa.com/bvlgari-watches.htmlhttp://www.watchvisa.com/chanel-watches.html